Thinkpads Forum

Installed a new Samsung 470 series SSD on my T60 ( Win xp pro SP3). I dont find that the applications load faster than what the did on my old 5200 rpm hard drive. After reading a lot about the responsiveness of SSD's, I had high expectations. Any help would be appreciated.

Try taking the benchmarks with this software:
http://crystalmark.info/software/Crysta ... dex-e.html

Let us know the results.

You need to make an aligned partition. Window XP doesn't do this. Read more about this and how here: http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum ... rking-life.

I was not happy with XP on any SSD I've tried, even after tweaking.

Investing into a W7 upgrade is likely your best bet.

My $0.02 only...

it's not a problem with SSD it's a problem with T60 series
actually with hardware limitation..
you wouldn't have that problem with T61 as you can find patched BIOS which eliminates that

I ran XP on my main desktop with a OCZ Agility 2 SSD. It ran fast, faster than it does with the Windows 7 it has now, but the throughput on the drive is probably not the issue here. It's the near instantaneous seek times in most cases that is the real benefit of a SSD, not the throughput. The SATA I cap won't effect the seek times. Only things that put a heavy load on the controller like copying and pasting files would be gimped by the SATA I cap. The snappiest machine I have right now is my R60e running Mint. It has a crappy 16GB Kingston S100 SSD, but running Linux, it flies.

I'm with Backslashnl1 on this one. If the OP used a XP disc or the recovery discs, it's not going to be aligned properly. You'll need a Vista or Windows 7 disc to make the partition and have it aligned correctly. Make sure you install the chipset drivers too.

thinkxplx wrote:Installed a new Samsung 470 series SSD on my T60 (Win xp pro SP3). I dont find that the applications load faster than what the did on my old 5200 rpm hard drive. After reading a lot about the responsiveness of SSD's, I had high expectations. Any help would be appreciated.

Sorry to hear that you are not happy with your SSD. Just so that we all know your situation, would you be kind to inform about the specific model number of your SSD; is it perhaps this? If so, did you follow the instruction advices in the Installation Guide (Easy Manual) (ver.1.0). According to user feedback at Newegg for the Samsung 470-series SSD it is a fine product, so this makes it strange that yours apparently is not?

Just to give you an idea of how fast a high-performance SSD is in a T60 (under Windows XP Pro SP3 w/all Microsoft Updates of Nov. 25, 2011), I just tested my 80 GB Intel X25-M (the 2nd generation, 34 nm, model = SSDSA2M080G2GC, FW ver. 2CV102M3) in my T60 model/type 2007-5BU which has an Intel core Duo T2400 CPU and 2.5 GB RAM. This SSD was set up completely from fresh (freshly formatted SSD), using the Lenovo Rescue & Recovery CD-media to install XP. I have configured it using the "Intel Solid State Toolbox", but apart from that I haven't done anything to e.g. manually try to align it etc.

The following are the boot-time numbers (Windows automatically logging in with no user-password set, Avira AntiVir Free installed, WiFi automatically connecting to the internet and FireFox ver. 3.23 being automatically started after boot); these numbers counted from (cold) power-up:

Time to POST has completed: 6 sec.
Time to the Windows "Welcome" (XP) screen is being displayed: 11 sec.
Time to the XP Desktop is shown: 40 sec.
Time to FireFox has been autostarted and is connected to the internet (via WiFi): 50 sec.

The below are the disk-speed numbers using CrystalDiskMark for this X25-M in my T60:



Perhaps you should check how many background programs and processes you have running... and perhaps uninstall unnecessary programs etc.? I suggest that you get free Microsoft Process Explorer to see what is running, and the likewise free Microsoft Autoruns for Windows which you may use to disable programs/processes without needing to uninstall the first. You may also want to try see what is causing your boot-time to be "slow"; get e.g. Soluto.

Let us have a bit more information about your setup, configuration, programs installed, launch-times etc. etc. - it is a bit hard to help you with the little information you provide.

Bottom line (based on my long, personal actual experience) is that a T60 with a high-performance SSD, such as the Intel X25-M, and running Windows XP or Windows 7, is for sure far more snappy than a 5400 or 7200 rpm mechanical HDD.

PS: I just want you to know that I am very proud of myself with this post... since I just learned how to insert an image in a post (my first image, ever, taa-daa!); as per the instruction in the thread How to post pictures?

Johan

Samsung 128GB SSD (MMCQE28G8MUP-0VA) also runs very slow on my T400 (6474-EC3), p8400, 6 GB RAM, Win 7 64-bit.

Your results are significantly better than mine:
- seq read: 60.71 mb/sec, write: 21.34 mb/sec
- 512k random read: 60.10 mb/sec, write: 5.448 mb/sec
- 4k random read: 15.09 mb/sec, write: 5.660 mb/sec
- 4k/QD32 random read: 20.82 mb/sec, write: 0.863 mb/sec

This is with Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP 11 mr3), so it may not be the "bare bones" performance ability, but it is the performance ability that I see as user. My son's "classic" HDD has *better* performance than this SSD.

A colleague has the same PC, Win 7 64-bit, and SEP 11 mr3, but with an OCZ SSD and it has *much* better performance. I am not surprised that Intel X25 also shows better performance than Samsung's SSD does.

Hi everyone, Thanks very much for your suggestions.

Here are some details about my machine.
Thinkpad T60 2008-GDU.
2.00 GB Dual-Channel DDR2 @ 332MHz
Bios 2.23
Samsung 470-Series MZ-5PA064C 64 GB 2.5-Inch SATA II MLC Internal SSD with Desktop Upgrade Kit and Norton Ghost 15 - MZ-5PA064C


Results of CrystalDiskMark
---------------------------

Sequential Read : 130.631 MB/s
Sequential Write : 127.517 MB/s

Random Read 512KB : 114.941 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 117.576 MB/s

Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 13.303 MB/s [ 3247.9 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 27.408 MB/s [ 6691.4 IOPS]

Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 15.058 MB/s [ 3676.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 28.847 MB/s [ 7042.8 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [C: 58.5% (22.9/39.1 GB)] (x5)
OS : Windows XP Professional SP3 [5.1 Build 2600] (x86)

The laptop has been a little bit more responsive after I stopped a few startup programs. Currently I have
zonealarm, winpatrol, Wi-fi and MS security essentials loaded at startup. I was not aware thatI had to align the partitions.

I recollect that the SATA Controller Mode option had to be set to Compatibility mode for the system to recognize the hard drive

Thank you for your time.

I recollect that the SATA Controller Mode option had to be set to Compatibility mode for the system to recognize the hard drive

A search on google will show you how to easily enable the sata driver then you can turn off compatibility mode. You can also edit your winxp setup disc with Nlite (freeware) and add the sata driver support, so it will find your drive on install. Unfortunately microsoft only lets you slip the drivers in during install if it's done on a floppy disc. I can't imagine why this hasn't changed, but in my mind, I'd update to vista or seven, either would be better because you're introducing new technology that XP was never designed to use. Both Sata and SSD should work out of box on seven or vista.

Samsung 470 on T60 is definitely a waste of superior SSD, since you only gonna get SATA ONE speed out of a T60. I have Samsung 470 installed on my W520, and let me tell you that thing is on crack all day everyday.
the SSD I have on T60 is a 128GB PB22-JS3 pulled out from old dell latitude E4300

violen wrote:Samsung 470 on T60 is definitely a waste of superior SSD, since you only gonna get SATA ONE speed out of a T60.

It is a common misconception to believe that the perceived random data access speed is somewhat depending on these rather theoretically relevant sequential data access rates. All these sequential reading speed considerations are of no practical relevance whatsoever for normal daily work and therefore are of theoretical merit at best. These are maybe of interest for benchmarking, or if one plans to continuously shove lots of GB from one drive to another and then maybe back again, but the standard usage experience will be just the same: "Wow, that was immediate!"

Regardless of whether one's machine is SATA I or II or III or whatever, the huge one single benefit is random data access, and this will offer practically the very same speed increase benefit anywhere. I would never hesitate "wasting" any such "superior" SSD on an "inferior" SATA connection, because the actual benefit will be just the same in practical real life terms.

thinkxplx wrote:I was not aware thatI had to align the partitions.

This will be the main culprit in your particular case. If the partitions are not properly aligned, the data access is considerably slowed down, as is the case for you now. WinXP installation is not aware of any alignment, but Vista and Win7 are out of the box. Please update us about your results once you have managed to get the alignment right.